Talk:Leopoldo López/Archive 1

POV issues
The subsection "Target of the Venezuelan Government" violates WP:NPOV policy:

JRSP 03:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the Carabobo incident López says demostrators wore Podemos shirts, etc. They are not the Venezuelan government in any case.
 * They arrived in government cars. Sandy 15:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the Zulia incident www.chacao.gov cannot be considered reliable per WP:RS
 * If Chacao.gov is not a reliable source, neither are any of the government sources controlled/published by Chavez. Sandy 15:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * In the driver murder case there is no connection even with Chávez supporters


 * The wording here does need to be NPOV'd, but I have some sources somewhere that back up the jist of the story. I'll work on them tomorrow. Sandy 04:55, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I find no indication anywhere that the driver/bodyguard "died in Lopez's arms" - in fact, several sources say he had dropped Lopez off at a restaurant. Sandy 15:47, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * This article is extremely biased towards the opposition viewpoint. One would expect Wikipedia to be a **little** more objective than the US corporate media propaganda machine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.228.129 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you would expect it to be just as biased. English-speaking Venezuelans and people who have emigrated from Venezuela are extremely likely to be rich, right-wing and anti-government. So most of what you hear in the English language, and in foreign media is going to be biased. People with free time and easy internet access are also more likely going to fit that demographic.

The government are socialist and most media outlets are owned by the rich. Naturally they will take an editorial stance against the government. This is the case in Venezuela too. Somehow even respected organisations like the BBC manage to demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of basic facts, context and history.

So the people who are likely to be editing english wikipedia pages on Venezuela are going to have an anti-government agenda. And they have plenty of "reputable" sources from which to cite their lies. Conradteixeira (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Carmona decree
The signer of the decree is actually López Mendoza's father (not the grandfather as I said in the edit summary). JRSP 10:47, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, thanks. And thanks for fixing axo - I was on my laptop, didn't have an ñ key, and meant to come back later to fix it. :-)   Is the article OK now?  Sandy 12:40, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * PS - I also wasn't clear on how to distinguish Plaza Francia from Plaza Altamira - put Altamira in parentheses without description. Sandy 12:41, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * It is the same place. "Plaza Francia" is the official name but "Plaza Altamira" is commonly used. WP articles are never "ok" but sure it looks better now JRSP 12:50, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Use of non reliable sources and deletion of sourced material
Accordingly to WP:V "[...] self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources". They cannot be used if it is contentious or involves claims about third parties. Also, do not delete material sourced with reliable, third-party published sources to replace it with material from a blog such as vcrisis: ''According to the Venezuelan Controller General, Lopez received a grant to his party, Justice First, from PDVSA while working in this company. The grant was given by his mother, Antonieta Mendoza de López, who was the manager of public affairs of PDVSA. Both were sanctioned with a prohibition of holding public jobs for three years. López sanction will start as soon as his term as major ends.'' JRSP 22:08, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Please, do not use vcrisis ( or any other blog) as a source, it is against WP:V, see also this mediation case. –JRSP 22:44, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Persistent deletion of sourced material
Some editor has removed several times the contents of the "Investigations and accusations of corruption" section. If someone has some objections to these contents, please discuss this issue here. JRSP 12:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

WP editorial
This editorial by Jackson Diehl is a lopsided piece of opinion and therefore cannot be used to source statements of fact. It is first used to source López was "was detained and assaulted by the state intelligence service" when actually this is López version. Also in the section "Investigations and allegations" there is a long paragraph taken from this article that should be condensed por the sake of balance. JRSP (talk) 12:23, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

No relation to subject
This WSJ article does not mention López. Chávez has nothing to do with López sanction; the Comptroller General and the Supreme Tribunal (and López and his mother, of course)are the relevant parties: The Wall Street Journal describes Chavez' actions as an "ambitious power grab" following his "humiliating defeat" in a December referendum, and quotes Luis Miquilena, a former government minister and Chavez ally: "We are in the presence of a dictatorial government which has given a coup d'état to the constitution," Miquilena said. "Here we have no constitution, no law and the president does exactly what he wants." JRSP (talk) 15:30, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Unbalanced paragraph
This paragraph is too biased, it contains opinion articles as refs and sometimes cherrypicks sentences: Miami Herald Latin America correspondent Andres Oppenheimer writes that "The government's argument is a sham because the law says that only candidates who have been sentenced and found guilty can be barred from running for office. That's not López's case, nor that of many other barred opposition candidates." BBC News calls the list of individuals barred from office a "blacklist," noting that "there is little that Mr López and others can now do that will allow them to take part in November's polls." The Economist observes that López is the "main apparent target" of the "decision by the auditor-general to ban hundreds of candidates from standing in the state and municipal elections for alleged corruption, even though none has been convicted by the courts." The Wall Street Journal notes that the ban "has elicited comparisons to moves by Iran's government preventing opposition politicians from running in elections in that country" and singles López out as "a popular opposition politician who polls say would have a good chance at becoming the mayor of Caracas, one of the most important posts in the country." --JRSP (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I also think there is no need of so many quotations, specially from opinion articles.


 * I respectfully disagree that this paragraph should not be included--there are many more examples of major news sources that, for example, describe the ban as a "blacklist"--and they are not editorials. Please feel free to flesh out the paragraph with additional sources that you feel will balance it. But it is important to include in Lopez' biography the fact that major media worldwide is watching his case and finds the actions taken against him to be questionable from a human rights perspective. That is simply a demonstrable fact that is an aspect of his life story. Merlin28 (talk) 02:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Additionally, I restored a factual update that you removed today in an edit intended to revert to your prior revision. I will accept your reversion-- but I do not want to see the factual, new material I added today deleted along the way. Merlin28 (talk) 02:23, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the pertinence of you last addition, it is from 31 July. Both actions were answered in August by the Constitutional and the Politic-administrative chambers just on time for López to register as a candidate had these decisions be favorable to him. In the light of these later events, this reference to "undue delay" is outdated. Regarding López quotations, I think they are too emotionally charged for an encyclopedic article. Balancing it with quotes of his opponents saying also emotionally charged words about López and his mother is not the best thing, IMO. I think it is better just reporting the facts: there was an administrative sanction, López did not agree with his political interdiction, the Venezuelan tribunals ruled against him and he is trying to put his case at some international organisms. Using editorials as Oppenheimer's is not good for neutrality in my opinion. The neutrality of the The Economist article can be put into question just from reading its headline; it is basically an opinion article in line with The Economist editorial line. Same thing with the WSJ article. And they are not the only "major media worldwide", I don't know if People's Daily, Izvestia or the The Times of India, for instance, have given any importance to this case, the USA media is not the only world media. On the other hand, the BBC article is somewhat more balanced as it at least give us a hint of the Venezuelan government point of view. The BBC has a reputation of balance and is usually a good unbiased source on Venezuelan affairs. JRSP (talk) 04:06, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking back through the edit history of this article, I see many instances of reliably sourced text that has been deleted, not in accordance with due weight. We don't balance articles by deleting reliably sourced majority viewpoints; minority or other viewpoints can be presented for balance, but deleting due weight and reliably sourced text is not the way to produce neutral, unbiased articles. I'm working back through the edit history to reinstate reliably sourced text; it would be helpful if links that go dead (like AP google links or Miami Herald links) were avoided, as I can't verify that text. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:44, 9 September 2008 (UTC)

Dead links
AP Google sources should be avoided, as the links always go dead. There are surely El Universal sources that can be used to replace these.
 * ... when the march reached a government building, police threw tear gas canisters into the crowd. Two other actions by López were also rejected by the Supreme Tribunal.

Sandy Georgia (Talk) 02:27, 9 September 2008 (UTC)
 * I've now replaced all the dead links, I think. Please try to use enduring links, and avoid links that are known to go dead, like AP google links and the Miami Herald, when possible. When events are well covered and described by the mainstream media, good links should be easy to come by, and due weight should be accorded the reports, per WP:V.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:59, 9 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Also Alcaldia de Chacao webpage (ref name=bio) is not a good ref, information will surely be removed in a few months after López has finished his term. JRSP (talk) 07:06, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Yes it is a good source; it's in the internet archive and we don't refrain from using a link just because info will change. My suggestion is that when alternate, more enduring news sources are available, that we should choose them over those that will go dead.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 15:13, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

POV section headings
This is a BLP. We don't use inflammatory biased POV section headings to describe politically motivated allegations. Please keep section headings neutral. "Traffic of influence" is not a common English phrase, and translation is OR; COI is the more common English terminology. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:11, 10 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Not POV, these are not my words but the source's. How come this is "POV" and "inflammatory biased" and the text you reinserted from WSJ is neutral? Perhaps trafico de influencia could be translated to influence peddling but this phrase and "administrative irregularities" are both in source. You used the word "nepotism" in the "Criticism of Hugo Chávez" article, this could be also an appropriate title. JRSP (talk) 18:47, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Airport incident removed
I've removed the following text, original research, partially sourced to a non-reliable source (Youtube) and partially sourced to a partisan source. If the text can be adequately cited, perhaps it could be copyedited and reinstated, but more than one sentence on the matter also gives undue weight to the incident in relation to Lopez's entire bio and career. (Also, dates are no longer linked on Wiki.) Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 23:05, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

Airport incident
On 25 June, 2008 After his arrival from Washington D.C., Lopez declared in Globovision with his shirt pocket ripped that he was physically attacked by more than 5 DISIP officials. Two days later, journalist Mario Silva presented on his program the recordings of the airport's surveillance cameras, from the moment he got off the plane until he left the airport, which showed: There were only two officials involved in the incident and it was Lopez instead who tried to attack one of them. Also, he was provoking the officials by taking pictures of them with his cellphone in a restricted area however they didn't respond violently. On the other hand, the video also showed that his pocket was intact, and he was putting things on it, by the time he left the airport. Moments later he came back to the airport with a Globovision team to make the denounce.

Barring from public office
López was not "sanctioned along" other 137 political candidates. He was sanctioned in 2006 but Supreme Tribunal ruled that an elected officer could not be removed because of an administrative sanction ( only through judicial sentence or recall referendum); the same rule stated that López would start his sanction at the end of his term as mayor in 2008. His case is unrelated to the other 137 (or whichever number) except for the temporary coincidence that they were barred from office when the 2008 regional elections were held; also, most of the other people in the list never expressed any intention of running as candidates in these elections so "political candidates" is inadequate. Additionally, I'm not sure if citymajors.com can be considered a reliable source. JRSP (talk) 19:52, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I restored your version until such a time as I get enough motivation to find a better source - thanks for the explanation. Awickert (talk) 04:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Very Low Quality Article
I've taken but a precursory glance at this article but faults are glaring. Most importantly, it seems there are a few dead links and thus unsourced material, and, even when material is sourced, phrasing often obscures who is making claims, what is being reported, what sort of evidence there is. This is an important figure and it would be nice to have some comprehensive information .. but I can't see how an article this badly composed can be saved. At the very least, we should add a banner warning users about the credibility of the information presented here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.118.163.99 (talk) 16:59, 30 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You deleted information from a dead link rather than looking for an updated source? It wasn't hard.  Most statement appear to be well attributed here; perhaps you can be more specific about your concerns.  When a link goes dead, you can mark it with  and someone knowledgeable may come along and update the link, but please don't delete common knowledge that is also cited just because the link has gone dead-- it happens quite often.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 03:22, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Bias

 * This article is extremely biased towards the opposition viewpoint. One would expect Wikipedia to be a **little** more objective than the US corporate media propaganda machine.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.210.228.129 (talk) 21:51, 22 February 2014 (UTC)

Actually, you would expect it to be just as biased. English-speaking Venezuelans and people who have emigrated from Venezuela are extremely likely to be rich, right-wing and anti-government. So most of what you hear in the English language, and in foreign media is going to be biased. People with free time and easy internet access are also more likely going to fit that demographic.

The government are socialist and most media outlets are owned by the rich. Naturally they will take an editorial stance against the government. This is the case in Venezuela too. Somehow even respected organisations like the BBC manage to demonstrate a deep misunderstanding of basic facts, context and history.

So the people who are likely to be editing english wikipedia pages on Venezuela are going to have an anti-government agenda. And they have plenty of "reputable" sources from which to cite their lies. Conradteixeira (talk) 01:36, 27 February 2014 (UTC)


 * Please review WP:NOTSOAPBOX-- reliable sources, pls. Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 18:07, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Small Section about Imprisonment
I think I will make a sub-section under the 2014 protest section about his imprisonment since the section is pretty large. Please let me know or make changes as necessary if things are not that great.--Zfigueroa (talk) 22:22, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Neutrality
Okay, this article needs a cleanup. I applaus the efforts of, but I think that in its current state, this article is seriously biased...  → Call me  Hahc  21  23:44, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I know, I will do what I can to continue work on the page.DaltonCastle (talk) 20:07, 2 May 2014 (UTC)

Ive looked at this page again to see what changes have been made. I applaud User: ZiaLater for his tireless effort. Its had major overhaul. I think this page will always ruffle some feathers since Lopez is a controversial figure in his own country. But I think it is presented as unbiased and neutral as possible given the turmoil.

Requested move

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Armbrust The Homunculus 12:24, 25 April 2014 (UTC)

Leopoldo López Mendoza → Leopoldo López – Mostly per WP:COMMONNAME. Leopoldo's second family name is rarely mentioned in sources (unlike Henrique Capriles Radonski, where both family names are used), and he is the most prominent public figure with this name (the other one being Chilean geochemist Leopoldo López Escobar). Additionally, and since Leopoldo López already redirects here, I don't see why we shouldn't move the article to that title.  → Call me  Hahc  21  01:05, 18 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Oppose . Support. Leopoldo López Escobar is the foremost Chilean geochemist of his generation, his name is virtually known by any Chilean geologist or geologist working with Chile. Therefore Leopoldo López should be a disambiguation. Sietecolores (talk) 23:25, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * If I do a Google search for "Leopoldo López" almost every result I get has to do with the Venezuelan politician, which means that he is way more prominent that the Chilean geochemist by a wide margin.  → Call me  Hahc  21  23:44, 18 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Ok. For now L.L. Mendoza seems to be the primary L.L. Sietecolores (talk) 15:06, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support Per nom and WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. López Escobar might be the primary "Leopoldo López" for Chilean geologists, but that is a very small group of people. -- Irn (talk) 00:43, 19 April 2014 (UTC)
 * Support: per nom and Hahc21. For people who don't understand this, it's traditional in Spanish to (usually) use the first of two family names; what looks to English speakers like his middle name, is what most of us would think of as his surname.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  09:43, 24 April 2014 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Trivial and incorrectly sourced material
Hey folks! I took another look at the page and found there were a couple details that cited a news story that didnt actually mention the details. Im sure this was somebody's mistake and if proper sources could be found, by all means, we can add these details back in. Also, I removed a number of details that seemed trivial, like him "being a hit with the ladies"... doesn't really affect the page. If somebody thinks they've got some better sourcing let me know! Im happy to help! DaltonCastle (talk) 21:10, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

Trivial material
The article still gives undue weight to trivial details, including but not limited to all the praise bestowed upon him. The essential facts relating to Lopez are being buried. For example, all the info and statistics regarding the alleged success of certain police reforms in Catia, a different city, under a different mayor, is not directly relevant to Lopez's allegedly stifled attempt to implement allegedly similar reforms as mayor of Chacao. It seems to imply that Lopez's reforms, had they been implemented, would have produced the same result--an unwarranted assumption. In addition, the article still reads largely as a fluff piece written by Lopez's campaign staff--it is better now than in the past, but still has a ways to go.--Riothero (talk) 18:50, 30 August 2014 (UTC)

Father's name
Lopez' father is also named Leopoldo López. In 2002, it was his father who was pardoned by Chavez. Due to the similarity of names, there is often confusion about Lopez' activities during this time. Neither were involved in the coup but were active in anti-Chavez demonstrations. DaltonCastle (talk) 01:34, 7 October 2014 (UTC)

Quotes
This article has been chunked up with over-quoting. At any rate, will the editors who are adding quotes please review MOS:QUOTE and WP:PUNC? Wikipedia does not use curly quotes-- it uses straight quotes. There are too many for me to fix. Sandy Georgia (Talk) 15:43, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

Category:Amnesty International prisoners of conscience
I've removed this category because I couldn't find anything with AI actually declaring him such. One article saying that it happened months ago doesn't convince me. When AI declares someone a prisoner of conscience, they make it known. (That's the point.) I think we need a much better source on this one. -- Irn (talk) 01:26, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * You can read here:
 * "'The charges brought against Venezuelan opposition leader Leopoldo López smack of a politically motivated attempt to silence dissent in the country'...'Venezuelan authorities must either present solid evidence to substantiate the charges against López or release him immediately and unconditionally'."
 * thanks --The_Photographer (talk) 21:12, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
 * As I've said to you over in es.wiki, when AI declares someone a "prisoner of conscience", they use those very words. You can see this very clearly with their treatment of Yury Rubtsou, Maziar Bahari, Raif Badawi, and many others. This category is explicitly for people who have been so declared by Amnesty International. The evidence you provide is WP:SYNTH and, therefore, original research. All we need is proof that Amnesty has declared López a "prisoner of conscience"; if they have done so, it should be easy to find. -- Irn (talk) 22:11, 20 June 2015 (UTC)


 * Yes, indeed it was easy. Take a look at http://www.amnestyusa.org/sites/default/files/uaa03314_12.pdf - do you need anything else? --AVM (talk) 20:16, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Um, thanks? That source is from three months after the above conversation, and basically as soon as AI declared him such, the source was added to that article and the category re-inserted. -- Irn (talk) 21:23, 20 October 2015 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. Please note: "the sources" are not the same. Also, then the contention is dead, helping to make the 'POV-lead' tag meaningless. --AVM (talk) 22:37, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Neutral Point of View
Parts of the article, particularly the lead section, are biased in favor of the subject. The subject is a controversial figure, but the lead section does not reflect this, emphasizing his status as a political prisoner of conscience, but does not mention his role in and possible support of the coup.

The article should be modified to include material from https://foreignpolicy.com/2015/09/07/the-other-side-of-leopoldo-lopez-venezuela-opposition/ and other secondary sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Groceryheist (talk • contribs) 17:00, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


 * How does it look now? Any suggestions?-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 23:52, 30 September 2015 (UTC)


 * The section on the 2014 protests has improved. The lead section still reads as slanted to me. -- Groceryheist (talk) 00:15, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * How specifically? Hammersbach (talk) 00:26, 1 October 2015 (UTC)
 * It is unnerving to read how people who are blissfully ignorant about what is happening in Venezuela dare to edit based not on their research, but on their opinions about the article being "slanted". I should know, as Wikipedia has no respect for Truth. --AVM (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2015 (UTC)

Invitation to settle POV disputes
I disagree with User:Groceryheist who boldly states "Parts of the article, particularly the lead section, are biased in favor of the subject". I only see facts in the lead section, not opinions. I've placed an invitation tag in the article, aimed at settling this discussion for once, or at least for the time being. Otherwise, no progress will get rid of the 'Neutrality' tagging. --AVM (talk) 21:02, 20 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I do not dispute any fact included in the lead section. However, there are many facts about the subject, some of which cast him in a favorable or politically beneficial light, and others which do not. Out of consistency with the controversial nature of the subject, I think that the lead section should include both kinds of facts,  but presently it only contains positive facts. I am not well informed on Venezuelan politics, but It is easy to see by looking at a balanced sample of news coverage, such as the foreign affairs article that Lopez is a complex figure who should not be given a free pass, despite his status as a political prisoner. Groceryheist (talk) 19:42, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * That is an interesting point, but it is a difficult area. Namely because the entire international community has condemned Venezuela's actions against Lopez. DaltonCastle (talk) 19:44, 22 October 2015 (UTC)
 * User:Groceryheist said "but does not mention his role in and possible support of the coup". The article barely mentions it. (only 3 sentences). The lead reflects the article, so it's ok. --Neo139 (talk) 17:51, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

According to the The Los Angeles Times, NPR, and Foreign Policy, Lopez didn't just support the coup, he was actively involved in instigating it, and even personally detained the former Minister of Interior and Justice Ramón Rodríguez Chacín. The cited sources keep getting removed from the article, somehow. Solntsa90 (talk) 03:16, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

174.20.73.143 (talk) 03:33, 19 February 2016 (UTC) I know that I just removed this because the citations in no way shape or form even supported this statement. They were entirely about a different subject and none even mentioned Leopoldo Lopez by name.

This is literally the worst article I've ever seen
It's poorly written, riddled with grammatical and spelling errors, seems like it was put together by a political advertising company--It's an atrocious article, and I for one would be committed to help scrub it. Solntsa90 (talk) 07:20, 9 December 2015 (UTC)

In editing this article, I've noticed all of the heavily pro-Lopez comments, including all of the ridiculous hyperbole, is pretty much restricted to El Universal, a newspaper known for having a very slanted editorial stance. I think we need to include some more non-biased sources, possibly from abroad, or at least, independent media. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:11, 9 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Your edits are not improving the page. Theres a difference between cleaning it up, which is acceptable, and removing reliably sourced content, which is not acceptable. I hope this can clear up some questions. DaltonCastle (talk) 02:41, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Please cite me what reliably sourced content I am removing. Meanwhile, you're actually removing this paragraph over and over, despite it being cited by NPR, Foreign Policy, and The Los Angeles Times:


 * López played a leading role in the 2002 Venezuelan coup d'état attempt against President Hugo Chávez, where as mayor of Chacao, the wealthiest district in Caracas, he lead protests and conducted civil disorder to the level of which NPR states "culminated in an attempted coup against Chávez in 2002, and even personally detained the Minister of Interior and Justice Ramón Rodríguez Chacín during the events of the failed coup attempt.


 * Also, you are removing any criticism of his character, despite that being well cited, with even government cables being used. What more do you want? Solntsa90 (talk) 02:51, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I am hoping you read this before making anymore changes. I am not challenging all of your edits. But you are making some changes that do remove sourced content, and this is what I cant endorse. Should the page be cleaned up? Sure. But your very first change to the article is removing that he is classified as a political prisoner. That is an issue, since almost every major media outlet outside of Venezuela (although several within) consider him a political prisoner, and consider the imprisonment to be politically motivated.
 * Why do you keep removing the massive, cited passage that clearly states that Lopez was active in and in part, responsible for the 2002 coup? Why do you keep on adding back in sources that are opinion editorials, or even undergrad writing assignments from Penn State? Solntsa90 (talk) 05:49, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Ok, take a step back and give me time to respond to you. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:50, 10 December 2015 (UTC)
 * For the record, his involvement in the 2002 Coup is debated. He detained the minister for his own protection from violent crowds.
 * Also, please stop accusing me of removing content when 1. you are doing the same thing and 2. I have tried (three times now) to explain to you the faults with your edits here on the talk page. DaltonCastle (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

In response to your first point:

1.) This is not up for debate. Both the NPR source and LA Times source explicitly list Lopez as being at the very least partially culpable for the 2002 Coup d'etat attempt, whereas NPR implicitly puts the blame on him for fanning the flames that lead to the coup. If anything, my edits are extremely generous (and a bit dishonest), since they minimise his role in the coup d'etat attempt.

In the NPR article, they even admit that Lopez has worked tirelessly to spread the fiction of his own minimalised role in the 2002 coup d'etat attempt. I suggest you read the sources that you are supporting, since they do not support half of the claims in the article.

"He detained the minister for his own protection from violent crowds. "

Nothing in the sources cited stipulates this, except for Lopez and his own political team. Every source in fact, states that his illegal detention of the former Minister of the Interior and Justice was highly controversial.

2.) As to your second point, I have consistently cited adequate reasons why I have removed content, such as bad sources (undergrad student papers are NEVER valid sources) or words that insinuate a political position.

3.) As to your final point, you have tried to explain it three times, all times, yet all three times, you don't explain why your opinions trump the cited sourced material. I am going to restore the page to the last version I edited, since you don't seem to realise that the sources I'm removing are overwhelmingly poorly cited, don't even reference the claims in the actual article, etc. and also, the attempt to scrub any mention of Lopez' involvement in the 2002 coup makes it hard to take your edits in good faith. Solntsa90 (talk) 06:03, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically, at this point, I'm going to assume vandalism, because despite being told that you are removing well-cited info, you think your personal opinion that Lopez' involvement is 'debated' (the way you edit the article, it removes any mention of his role in the coup from the lead at all) trumps the research bureau of NPR, Foreign Policy Magazine, and The Los Angeles Times.


 * Ok, so I looked at the sources and it doesn't state that he organized or was part of the organized part of the 2002 coup. He just participated in the citizen arrest of interior minister Ramón Rodríguez Chacín. After that, some say it was part of the coup or was for the RRC's protection. Both makes sense in a way. However, he is not "culpable" for the coup, those responsible are mostly the military (who thought Chavez was killing his own people) and people that had the position to take the president's chair (Carmona was just in the right place at the right time when the military was looking for an interim leader, though many had a bad feeling about him). When NPR states that Lopez's challenging of the government "culminated in an attempted coup against Chávez in 2002", it means that his biggest show of challenge was his participation in the coup confusion, not that he was plotting to overthrow the government. He has distanced himself from the 2002 coup, however, though what reasonable politician wouldn't? For the undergrad source, I can't find that, so if someone could show me that edit it would help.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 07:45, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for clarification, as it is always good to have a 2nd opinion. I think I read too deeply into NPR's analysis. In regards to the undergrad student source I was talking about, It was removed already in the first edit, it would seem. Solntsa90 (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I see that now. At first it seemed like a legitimate source until I dig some digging and found that it was a student blog. It's tough to figure out sometimes.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 09:52, 10 December 2015 (UTC)

Education section
The Education section focuses way too heavily on his own personal statements and the anecdotes of others, of which all of them portray him in a very positive (i.e, very partial) light. This needs to be rectified, as, with the exception of very notable world leaders, personal quotations and anecdotes so heavily utilised in an article is a bit inappropriate, since that allows someone to spin an article in anyway they see fit.

Solntsa90 (talk) 09:40, 11 December 2015 (UTC)

POV tag
I see that various editors have expressed concern with regards to the neutrality of this article. Reading through the article lede, I think that they do certainly have a point. The way that the lede has been constructed at points does certainly appear to carry a pro-Lopez and anti-government bias, which ideally it should not do. I'm placing a POV tag onto this article; please do not remove it until the situation in question has been dealt with and the wording has been altered to deal with the problem. Midnightblueowl (talk) 13:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems that most of it has been fixed. Solntsa90 made a few changes and another user seems to have figured out the lede. Anything else that should be looked at?-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 05:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * I'm coming to this with fresh eyes. There's a soft air of promotion scattered throughout, but it's clearly toned down. I've removed a copyvio sentence with "thugs" description stated as a fact. Otherwise, the NYT Op Ed seems unduly long and is filled with factual statements (that don't seem to be fact checked or rebutted where dispute exists) rather than López's attributed opinion.--Carwil (talk) 19:14, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * We can probably cut down that Op-Ed section. With that LATimes sentence, would we be able to word it in a different way to make it not copyvio? Like other prominent people in Venezuela (including his wife Lilian Tintori), the threat of death or violence has seemed close to them. I think this should at least be mentioned in a way that complies with Wikipedia's standards.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 20:18, 15 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Most of the content is fine. "Thugs" should be specified in a more encyclopedic way, but I don't object to the material otherwise. It would be nice to have more specific coverage of the incidents involved so we can be clearer. I just didn't feel like rewriting. Go ahead.--Carwil (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2015 (UTC)
 * Just saw the revision. Great.--Carwil (talk) 19:55, 16 December 2015 (UTC)


 * Thanks Carwill.-- ZiaLater  ( talk  ) 00:39, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

That controversy section
I am not opposed to an inclusion of a "controversy" section. But what was there was literally just personal attacks on his character. That is not suitable for a biographical article. It mentioned only one of the Wikileaks cables mentioned. Why not include, then, information that is not a personal attack against someone's character? Dont add personal attacks back in. DaltonCastle (talk) 21:52, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 one external links on Leopoldo López. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20140306140229/http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/21552724/leopoldo-lopez-venezuela-blueblood-ardent-maduro-foe/ to http://au.news.yahoo.com/world/a/21552724/leopoldo-lopez-venezuela-blueblood-ardent-maduro-foe/
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://dartreview.com/archives/2005/11/22/new_organization_opens_fire_on_chavez.php
 * Attempted to fix sourcing for http://terranoticias.terra.es/articulo/fiscalia-investiga-alcalde-opositor-presuntas-2582149.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:17, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 one external links on Leopoldo López. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151003115809/http://www.cadenaglobal.com/noticias/default.asp?Not=185661&Sec=5 to http://www.cadenaglobal.com/noticias/default.asp?Not=185661&Sec=5
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20110524074234/http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10118074 to http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_10118074

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 05:47, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leopoldo López. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141009044857/http://www.el-nacional.com/politica/ONU-inmediata-liberacion-Leopoldo-Lopez_0_497350352.html to http://www.el-nacional.com/politica/ONU-inmediata-liberacion-Leopoldo-Lopez_0_497350352.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:49, 14 May 2017 (UTC)